My Arrest And Injury By Torrington Police

Posted on June 12, 2020 by Kent

UPDATE. Twenty Two Months Ago today I was arrested and bloodied by Torrington Police officer William Quarles.  I don’t doubt he is a good guy.  I spent several hours with him that morning in the ambulance, the TPD and at the Emergency Room at Charlotte Hungerford.  I blame his training and the culture of violence in the Torrington Police.

This was last updated 18 months ago, but the final days of my criminal charges are soon over.   It you have not yet watched the video of my arrest, WATCH IT NOW.  Click on the link below, right now.

WATCH THIS VIDEO Click the link to the LEFT.

I will not plead guilty to resisting arrest. I know in the video Quarles says I am not under arrest, but he called the supervisor who told me in the car I was under arrest. Now for 22 months nothing has happened.

The ONLY reason for prosecution is if I sue the City of Torrington. If I am found guilty of anything at all my chances for winning a suit are diminished. So they hold it up for years.

I call this Prosecutorial, Judicial and Procedural misconduct. I recently contacted the US Department of Justice and the State of Connecticut Attorney General. I believe it is a crime to prosecute me so that I won’t sue them for misconduct, called, Depravations of Rights Under Color of Law. Section 242 of Title 18  of US Criminal Code. Malicious prosecution in Connecticut is more difficult to prove.

So then will come the Civil Suits. No one can predict how they will go. So here are some of my simpler claims so far:

L18W-CR19-0181768-S  Date of Arrest 12/17/2019.  Court date October 19, 2021 at 2PM

Sent to the Justice Department:

Police handcuffed and bloodied me while not under arrest, clearly told multiple times on video I was “detained” not under arrest.

After police saw blood on my face while I was handcuffed I was charged with resisting arrest.

State Prosecutor Sarah Fallon asked Corporation Counsel Victor Muschell to direct police not to comply with my requests for evidence via the Freedom of Information Act.  She admits to it so as not influence a future jury.  Some evidence was destroyed after I requested it  On the record in open court.

Two years and still no trial date. I will not plead guilty to anything. I was offered a $35 fine to plead guilty.

State police were asked to investigate but claimed no jurisdiction, that they would forward the request to Torrington police.

Torrington police claim they never received the request for investigation.  I have the names of the office claiming to send it and the officer claiming Torrington never received it.

Multiple FOI requests are still waiting for hearings in Hartford after nearly two years.

Requests for information from the Torrington Board of Public Safety were ignored.

Five motions filed over a year ago are unread in the Torrington Courthouse. A motion for change in venue was denied by a single word. A motion for Discovery denied because the evidence was “not relevant” but did not say why it was not relevant despite clear arguments of relevance in court. The court record is available on request.

Fifteen court dates in two years, motions unread, continuances granted to the prosecution.  The prosecutor claims no appearance was filed while the judge said it was filed two months earlier in open court. Motion denied in writing but not delivered until two months after it was denied. Stalling for two years in hopes I will plead guilty to something.

Court date October 19, 2021 with seven motions pending mostly for Discovery. 

Malicious prosecution in an attempt to avoid a suit against the City of Torrington for police misconduct.

On December 17 when this happened I had my own recording going, but no audio. Here are my security videos. Not very good quality.

My security video 1
My security video 2
My security video 3

I have written email and letters and sent the video to newspapers, TV stations, State officials, the Justice Department, the FBI, the Police and the State’s Attorney. The State’s Attorney said what the police did is fine. The first event was the court date of December 30, 2019. When you are reading this I am waiting for a jury trial.

Here is my Summons: Misdemeanor Ticket .

So I don’t know where to go in the huge marble lobby. I ask at the door that says “criminal” and the woman there said, no, this is for the serious criminals. Try Traffic next door. There were a few people there, and a clip board, so I put my name on it. Then I walked to the clerk’s office and they looked at my summons and said, yeah, go to traffic. So I sit in Traffic. Someone left a little bag of white powder on one of the chairs which caused a fuss.

The Prosecutor doesn’t introduce herself or anything. Calls my name. I have my phone in my hand and I hit record. She says “Are you recording”? Yes. Okay. Stop. We are done. Just go to court room number 1 and I will meet you there. And she goes into her door. As I am walking across to Court Room 1 she appears again with security who tells me to erase anything I recorded, that recording is not allowed in the court house. I push a button or two and tell them it is erased.

I am called in front of the judge. Prosecutor says she has not had a chance to talk to me, but that I had tried to record our meeting. Judge looks at me curiously, sternly. Prosecutor says she is prepared to offer me $50 fine and no criminal record. The judge asks if I want that deal. He seems stern and, kind of, well, angry or bothered. I said “No your honor”. Prosecutor says “you will have no record”. I don’t say anything. The judge asks the prosecutor if she will proceed, she pretends to think about it. Yes, she will proceed. He says, okay, an infraction trial, like it is a bother. He strongly advised me to get a lawyer.

Then his mood changes, he becomes, like almost kind looking. He asks do I want a judge trial or a jury trial. I say “Jury trial, your honor”. Then he changes back. Prosecutor says I should file an appearance and a motion for discovery. Next date is for pre trial. I ask if I will be notified, the judge asks the prosecutor and she says no, they do not normally notify pro-se defendants, I need to check. Do I come to the court room? No, come to her office and sign in like I did this time.

I went to the Clerk’s office, which looks more like a prison telephone glass room. I said I needed an appearance form. She hands me one, I put down the numbers I had from my ticket. I ask if this is all that is needed? She says she is not a lawyer and cannot advise me. So I leave the form.

I knew my own videos were not good enough to convince anyone that I was not resisting or impeding so I had to get copies of the cops’ body cams. So on January 30, 2020 I put in a Freedom of Information Act request for information. Here is a link to the PDF of that first request. FOIA 12/30/19 This is the video you saw above which I received more than six months later, but the police had already viewed it to make their police reports.

After sending the letter I looked into the law and found that in Connecticut not answering is considered a denial. But you only have 30 days to appeal. Presumably, then, you would have to wait to the 29th day that they don’t answer to file the appeal. If you wait longer your appeal will be denied.

But I am getting ahead of myself. I tried a website called Muckrock who claimed to help with FOIA requests. Long story short, after various ways of asking for help, they refunded my $20 and didn’t help much at all. They did receive the information I requested through them after I received it however. I had to pay for the video copies twice, about $20 I think
I requested the video above and within days I got this, hand delivered by a police officer.
TPD Response
I won’t put any more links to these Creative Denials which are worded nearly identically every time. I wrote letters back to them about the confusing wording The letter says:
“I will need more time to determine whether I will be able to process all of the video requested.”
The exact wording is used on all responses and presumably serves to keep people guessing. I now know that the officers had already viewed the video in question because they used it to write their reports of the day. I wonder why they wrote their report ten days after the arrest, but the Use Of Force report was written the same day (but not given to me until August).

https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
It is my view at this point that they have circled the wagons and they were conspiring to use the law to deprive me of my rights. I think they were talking about how best to be sure that I don’t get my constitutional rights, but more about that later.

I wrote a quick letter asking for clarification and of course did not get a response. So I wrote another FOIA request. Rather than bog you down reading a lot of them, here is one from February 3 which shows what they were like. However the Connecticut FOI Commission accepts email and confirms receipt very quickly. I always mail, email and fax. Lawyers say to send things certified, but all you need is confirmation they received it.
CT FOI Appeal 2/3/20

There was no hurry before the long date to pre-trial but I knew I needed to write a motion for discovery and I had received absolutely nothing from the courts since the January court date. So I looked up the case on line and there was nothing written next to appearance. So I called the clerk, no, they did not have an appearance form.

Signed Appearance
I mailed, faxed, and brought a copy to the courthouse and submitted it at the clerk’s window. This was the beginning of Covid-19 season and the parking lot was completely empty. I almost left, but I saw someone washing windows. So I walked in and it was full. Lots of people, but all people who worked there. No public.

With the Motion For Discovery I attached another copy of the appearance. We can talk about the motion in a minute, we should finish the issue with filing my appearance. I suspected the trouble because the prosecutor had made such a point of me filing the appearance, and the lady at the clerks window made such a point of not helping me and then the form disappears. I do not have a copy of the first form.

So now the June 23 court date was fast approaching, Covid 19 was in full swing, and Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney Sarah Fallon sends me this short letter:
Fallon Letter
She says: “…please file an Appearance form with the Clerk’s Office with a copy to this office. Discovery materials will be provided as appropriate pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book sections 40-7, 40-10, and 40-11 , et seq.” She is claiming she did not receive my appearance.

I respond with my own short letter, and a Motion to dismiss.
May 21 letter
Motion to Dismiss

During this time I still have not seen the video that you saw at the beginning of this post. I was there, I knew what happened, but I did not know if I would ever have proof. I had a hearing in Hartford with the Torrington Corporation Counsel Victor Muschell. It had been postponed due to the Coronavirus. I had some interesting email conversations with the ombudsman for the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission.

3/10/2020 4:21 PM

I just talked to the Town Attorney again.  Apparently the prosecutor has now asked the town not to release the video.  I explained that it is not the prosecutor’s decision because it is not their record.  The town attorney understands that and said he is going to reach out to the prosecutor personally.

The date of the hearing I am told that Sgt. Wityak is not available because of a training commitment.  I would expect them to request a continuation of the hearing date.  If they request a continuance they will have to send you a copy of their request.

As an aside, you should be able to go to arrange a viewing of the video at the court as part of the discovery process.  They generally have to open their file to the arrested party. —

Attorney Matthew Reed Ombudsman FOI Commission for State of CT.

To recap in March, 2020, prosecutor Fallon is telling the city attorney to tell the police not to release information to me. In May she is saying she never received the Appearance and the Motion I had filed in March, and had been confirmed received by the Clerk of Courts and by fax receipt. So I wrote a letter the same day I received hers with a copy of the already filed appearance and motion attached.

As anyone who has seen the video knows I refused to give the officer my ID and I started recording with my telephone. He took the phone out of my hand and arrested me, bloodied me and told me he was not arresting me. That was clear. What is not clear is why I refused to give my ID. I ask him three times why I need to give him my ID. I give him a business card, I point out he is in my place of business, that he has said he knows me. But I did refuse to give him an ID in my own home and that is why I am on trial for getting beat up.

Officer Quarles referred to coming here to my place of business again and again. Well that is true. Alfred James Lauretano who I call Jimmy is a neighbor, lives next door, and I asked for an got some 40 pages of his calls for police assistance during the last two years. http://police.compx2.com/2019FOIA.pdf

Jimmy has learning difficulties and anger issues. I have several videos of his interactions. He uses racial slurs and once called the police on my girlfriend’s music because it was Spanish. I learned several years ago that calling the police only makes things worse. Once the police told me to video Jimmy and then another officer says don’t video him because that only provokes him. Once Jimmy told me he was going to smash a car with a cinder block so I took pictures of the cinder blocks by his front door. He had security camera and when he returned he called the police who told me taking pictures of his front door was trespassing. Oh, I have a million stories.

But one interesting one is why Jimmy’s video is not on the body cam of the officers who came to my home. Jimmy was there screaming obscenities at the officer while I was in the snow/rain. Officer Quarles was in the house with Cookie and he came out thinking I was the one screaming. But none of that is recorded. And prosecutor Fallon says that is not relevant to the case and so does not comply with the Discovery motions.

So we are into the Covid 19 Period and the courts are closed. Then comes the murder of George Floyd and the BLM movement. There was a protest in Torrington and the Police Chief says in a sound bit I heard on the radio that police need to stop their fellow officers from misconduct. So I wrote this open letter and sent it all over town. http://police.compx2.com/Police Chief0604.pdf

So jump ahead to November 16, 2020.

October 20 at 2 pm I appeared in court as required for a “pre-trial” and presented the clerk and the prosecutor a copy of my Third motion to compel discovery.
http://police.compx2.com/Police%Discovery3.pdf

I was told on October 20 to show up at 2pm on Nov 16. But in the morning I looked and it said 10am. So I called about 9:15 in the morning and they confirmed I should be there at 10. I called someone to cover for me at work, and I asked to speak to the office of the prosecutor about being told 2pm but then they want me at 10am. I was put on hold, for over an hour.

So I arrived about 10:30 and waited in court until recess at 1 pm. Then returned at 2pm.

I was left to the last case in the live audience and was brought in front of the camera where the Prosecutor said she believed I wanted to argue my third motion for discovery. I said if the judge was not going to grant it then sure, I want to argue it. So he said a 15 minute recess so that he can read it. I went out to the hall. No one else was left.

Called me back in to the camera, Judge sounded irritated that he read all the motions, my motion for dismissal, my second motion for dismissal, my motion for discovery, my motion for change in venue, my second motion for discovery. Is that all? I said, no, I thought we were only going to discuss the third motion for discovery. He could not locate a copy. I had one and the prosecutor had one. He said he could read it quickly, it is only one page.
So go ahead, argue.

Because of the discovery I had received the end of December it appears the State intends to argue that the police knew me as a trouble maker and that’s why they could beat me up. I am asking for the video and police reports for the calls from the house next door to me to show that the police certainly knew me from those bogus reports from this violent man that was on video the very day of my arrest. Than none of the reports of more than one a month for the past several years has lead to any action against me. That the problem is the complainer, not who he complains about.

So the Prosecutor responds that none of the body camera footage exists having been destroyed after so many weeks. The judge asked lots of questions about why the complaints from the house next door has anything to do with this case. I respond that the cop who beat me up said in his reports and in his video that I was a problem. Including asking “why somebody hasn’t done anything to” me yet in the video. If I am a trouble maker worthy of a beating how about all the other people Alfred James Lauritano has complained about? Should they be beaten too?
The judge said he would give a written response and checked my address with me which was kind of funny since he had said it seconds before and several other times before that. I knew that I had no future court date and wished to make the point. He had read the motions complaining about not being notified of anything. So when he confirmed the address I said “thank you your honor” and walked at a normal pace toward the door.

I was more than half way there when the prosecutor asked if the judge was going to give me another court date. And so he called me back and I said January 5 at 9 am. I asked if I would be notified. He said yes. The prosecutor said, no, your honor he will not receive any other notification. I said this is an ongoing problem your honor. He said I can write it down now. I asked if this is the only notice I will receive and he said he would send me a clerk’s letter. I said thank you your honor.

http://police.compx2.com/mybradymotion.pdf

Court Date March 2, 2021 I expected to talk about the Brady Motion.
—–

A. On or before March 10, 2020 prosecutor Sarah Fallon suppressed evidence by colluding,
conspiring or influencing the Torrington Corporation Counsel to intervene and deny the
accused of Freedom of Information requests to the Torrington Police Department. The
Defense received this email from ombudsman for the Connecticut Freedom of
Information Commission, MATTHEW D. REED | ATTORNEY Direct: 860-256-3961 |
Fax: 860-566-6474 | matthew.reed@ct.gov
EXCERPT FROM EMAIL
3/10/2020 2:09 PM
Discovery Motion – Brady Inconsistent Evidence 6
6
I have had a couple of conversations with Sgt. Wityak as well as an attorney for the Town.
They tell me they have expedited your request and will have records for your
shortly..sounded to me like as soon as today or tomorrow.
Let me know if you hear from them. MR
EXCERPT FROM NEXT EMAIL
3/10/2020 4:21 PM
I just talked to the Town Attorney again. Apparently the prosecutor has now asked the town
not to release the video. I explained that it is not the prosecutor’s decision because it is not
their record. The town attorney understands that and said he is going to reach out to the
prosecutor personally.
END EXCERPT FROM EMAILS
B. Prosecutor Sara Fallon’s suppression of this evidence violates the Bar as unprofessional
conduct as stated above (Section 3.11 of the American Bar Association Standards
Relating to the Prosecuting Function).
C. Further Prosecutor Fallon stated in this Court on November 16, 2020:
“I did check with the department on that, and they tell me that there are no such body camera
recordings. The – – the sergeant with state police stated there is zero body camera footage for
the afternoon incident, as no report was required for the incident. And the video retention
period for an incident of this type is 13 weeks. So it has been deleted from the system as part
of the automation. So that does not exist.”
D. Suppression of evidence by Sarah Fallon on or before March 10, 2020 was well before
the 13 week period the State claims is normal for the deletion of evidence.
Discovery Motion – Brady Inconsistent Evidence 7
7
E. Further this court heard oral argument on November 16, 2020 that the material deleted
was relevant to the case because the accused said to the Court at that time that the “police
say that I needed to be beat up because I was a trouble maker … why hadn’t anybody
done anything to him before, were the cop’s words” referring to the accused. Here is a
transcript of the exchange between the two arresting officers immediately before entering
the accused’s home and cuffing the accused, injuring the accused and arresting the
accused.
“Quarles: Why were you here yesterday?
“Deloy: I don’t know if we were here yesterday but he keeps causing problems with these
people too because he blocks the driveway.
“Quarles: Yeah I heard about that with the snow and shit. That was…
“Deloy: That’s two days in a row. The third day he did something with somebody else here.
“Quarles: Well why isn’t nobody doing nothing to this guy?
“Deloy: We all waiting for you B.
“Quarles: Of course. This place is a joke, man.”
F. Material to this exchange is some 40 pages of complaints to the Police from Alfred James
Lauritano of 237 / 239 East Main Street, Torrington, my next door neighbor. Despite
suppression efforts of the State Prosecutor I was able to get some copies of police
complaints through the Freedom of Information Act. In the destroyed video Mr.
Lauritano would have appeared while the officers were present on the afternoon call. He
screamed obscenities, threatening and cursing the officers. Mr. Lauritano paid no
attention to me and officers instructed me not to pay any attention to Mr. Lauritano.
Discovery Motion – Brady Inconsistent Evidence 8
8
G. Also in the destroyed video would be the exchange between the original complainant
Patricia Brown and the arresting office Quarles reflected in the afternoon police report
stating Ms. Brown “DOESN’T WANT COP BACK AT RESD”. The exchange between
the two lasted some 20 minutes and they were the only ones in the room.
H. Although this is exculpatory evidence and would tend to impeach prosecution witnesses
the Court ruled this information was “not relevant to the pending charges” in an order
signed by the Court and dated 11/16/20, mailed Jan 6, 2021 and received Jan 11, 2021.
For all these reasons stated above the Defendant moves the court to compel the State to
produce the requested evidence according to the above cited precedents.
Granted_____ Denied_____ to which Defendant objects.
——–

But instead Prosecutor Fallon asked it we could talk about a deal or do I want a trial. I said “Deal ?” She said something that would leave me without a criminal record. I said “that’s not my issue. I want it dropped”. She said okay a trial then, Courtroom 1A I will meet you there. I will call you as soon as I can.

I watched proceedings from about 10:15 to 11:45, then a recess. Came back at !2:15, I was about to leave for a minute. In fact I stood up and walked toward the door and maybe she thought I would be in the hallway by the time she called me, but I waited. I was standing when she called.

This time the Judge addressed the prosecutor immediately and talked about procedure for jury trial for infractions, insinuating that it may not be an option. I had heard them talking before about a deadline for having jury trial or it would be cancelled. I assume they mean that the case would be canceled by the State. I assume that is why they want a deal from me. They will cancel my case rather than waste a lot of time losing my case.

The judge admonished me to get a lawyer telling me how complicated jury trials are, but said “if” there is a jury trial. He was wrapping up, said the next date would be May 26, 2020 and I had to interject, “Your honor, may I speak?”

I said this was very different from what I expected. I had spoken the last time about submitting a Brady Motion and I had done so and thought we would be talking about that motion today. The judge asked when I submitted it, I said at least a month ago. The Clerk said she has a motion from me that say Brady on it submitted January 22, 2020. The judge asked if that was it. I said yes. When would we address that motion. The judge said he didn’t but repeated “if there is a trial” we would address the motion before trial. I pushed. Before May 26? He said maybe. he doesn’t know. But before the trial, I affirmed. “Yes” before the trial if there is a trial.

May 26 is the next time anyone will look at this mess.


















Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Blight Fright in Torrington, CT

Posted on January 3, 2020 by Kent

Let’s Change Torrington’s Blight Policies

I was fined $200 a day for two weeks while Torrington officials refused to tell me the problem.  At the hearing I was told the blight officer had been on vacation.

So Victor Muschell, Corporation Counsel, said I should be glad to have a “win” in my column, but I won’t consider it a win until the silly, expensive and illegal policies change.  Muschell says there is “no such thing” as appealing these silly, expensive and illegal policies. 

People seem to think I am lucky I don’t have to pay fines for this nonsense, and that it is good that State officials come to hearings and straighten out our Torrington City Hall.

So I wrote Elinor Carbone, the Mayor of Torrington explaining the problem.  She didn’t answer, so I wrote her again.  Now I am here wondering if anyone can help.

  1. Torrington Blight policy clearly makes the property owner responsible for the private property of tenants. It is illegal for one person to dispose of another person’s private property even if Torrington considers that property to be blight.
  2. No one should be fined while city officials refuse to speak to the issue for which the fine is levied.  While awaiting a hearing fines should be suspended or officials should be accessible.
  3. If US mail is used for communications then the date of receipt of the letter is the significant date, not the date it was written.  I was given 15 days from the day a letter was dated, not from the day I received it (6 days after it was dated). 
  4. And with such short time limits as Torrington gives, US mail should not be the preferred way to communicate problems with Torrington residents. Alternative forms of communications should be used or time limits should be extended to allow mail to go back and forth
  5. Citations for blight should relate to a complaint and not be haphazard and open to charges of spite and favoritism.

I posted this on Facebook and a friend answered:

Jim A Gioia Kent one question? Do you have blighted property? If so why and why haven’t you fixed it in the past? I am sure you have reasons.

Kent Johnson That isn’t how it works. The town gives you a Certified Letter that you have 15 days from the day the letter is written (not the day it is sent, or the day it is received) to take care of very general problems. In my case it was an overgrown vine, peeling paint, junk all over the place, and unregistered vehicles.

I got rid of the vine in a day, and painted the next day. The Blight Officer took five days (remember I had 15 days, and eleven had passed which means I had 4 days) and City Blight Officer said some of the problems were gone but not all.

So on the 15th day I finally found the Blight officer in her office and I was armed with pictures that show the unregistered camper had been registered all along, and the junk that had been blocking the license plate had been removed. She responded there was still a tire on the ground, so that is still blight. And my time was up, I had to go to a hearing. Here is a link, the tire I circled in red is the “blight”.

At the hearing all the fines were removed and she agreed I was not responsible for blight. Is that any clearer?

Jim A Gioia If thats the case than it seems to me they might be hasty or have a problem with you Your side seems to indicate that you indeed tried to correct the problem Maybe just saying maybe more hours or people need to be available to resolve issues IDK I dont work for the town Be interesting how it goes

Kent Johnson I have all the pictures and a recording of the hearing. I don’t care that I am right, I want them to change policy.

Jim A Gioia Good luck on that Kent LOL not trying to be funny but you how gov works or rather doesnt

Kent Johnson That’s my point Jim. They say I should be glad they didn’t treat me worse. Torrington government is out of control.Edit or delete this

Jim A Gioia Different times Kent sad very sad

 With your permission I am going to put your questions up on my Against Goliath web site so people with the same questions can see…

 yup

The tire leaning on the camper is the blight that caused the hearing.
The camper was registered, but the license plate was not visible to the Blight Officer so she assumed it was not registered and cited me for blight.

Here I will be putting links to all the pictures and documents that show just how stupid this mess is, and how easy it would be to make the system more reasonable and keep the State out of our Torrington business.
I am looking for stories from other Torrington people about how badly they were mistreated by City Hall. If you have pictures, letters, or other verifiable facts showing how Torrington has treated you unfairly, please contact me. Kent@compx2.com

My letter of November 20, 2019 was sent twice to Torrington’s Republican Mayor with no response:

Dear Mayor Carbone,

I am directing this letter to you as your Corporation Council Victor Muschell has twice ignored my letter, attached.  Perhaps you are aware of the short-sighted arrogance of those who work in City Hall, and I would hope you can address this pervasive problem. It seems to me the taxpayers are happier if they believe their governments are fair and efficient.

Your blight policy is illegal according to City Ordinance, and state and federal law. It is also irrational and Mr. Muschell defends it saying there is “no such thing as appeal” for city policy. The arrogance is palpable.

City Ordinance Chapter 161 – 5. – “Duty of owner or occupant” does not differentiate between owner or non-owner occupant.  But city policy clearly holds the property owner responsible for all blight regardless of any other consideration.  When the blight officer deems the personal property of a non-owner occupant to be blight only the owner of such personal property can address the problem, not his or her landlord. As a landlord I am aware of what I have to do to force tenants to comply with leases   It begins with a letter that gives them two weeks to comply with their lease or be evicted.  This is unworkable according to Torrington City policy for obvious reasons.

The only solution I can think of is a challenge to your policy so that it can be changed in accordance with City Ordinance and state and federal law.  Perhaps you know another solution.

City Ordinance 16 E (2) requires the blight enforcement officer to provide “A due date, within a reasonable time determined by the Blight Enforcement Officer, for the performance of any act required to remedy the violation.”  I was given the necessary information in the very same envelope with the citation fining me $200 a day for noncompliance. Blight officer Ashly Clement refused to help further while awaiting a hearing.  The taxpayer then paid salaries and expenses for four government employees during this ridiculous two hour long hearing which Mr. Muschell counted as a “win” for me.

If the blight officer is fining me during the time I am waiting for a city – provided hearing I also need guidance from the blight officer as to what, precisely, I am responsible for to stop the fines.  When I am refused such guidance by the blight officer the fines should then be waived until such guidance can again be provided.

The ordinance says the blight officer is responsible to provide reasonable time.  In my case that time was 15 days from the date on a letter which I received 6 days later.  At the very least the 15 days should begin when I receive the letter, not when the blight officer dates the letter.  Even so 15 days is not enough time for a landlord who is not an occupant of the property cited to deal with a tenant and report back to the blight officer by mail.  Unless arrangements are made for faster communication 15 days does not allow even enough time to ask if the work is done to the satisfaction of the Blight Officer and get an answer.

Finally Mr. Muschell wrote “The Enforcement Officer does not pick and choose the properties to warn”.    That was certainly not true in my case. None of the original complaints against my tenants had to do with blight.  However the blight officer issued citations for blight which had nothing to do with the complaint. The complaint is not addressed, but instead blight violation is addressed.

Mr. Muschell evidently sees his job as protecting arrogant Torrington city policy over being helpful to taxpayers.  I hope you see the job differently.  It is undeniably helpful to aid the non- occupant owner in removing blight belonging to property occupants.  It is undeniably illegal for any person to dispose of personal property of anyone else even if I am fined by the City of Torrington for not doing so.    And I should not be fined while city officials refuse to speak to the issue for which the fine is levied.  If US mail is used for communications then the date of receipt of the letter is the significant date, not the date it was written.  And with such short time limits as this a channel for quicker communications should be opened.  Finally citations for blight should not be haphazard and open to charges of spite and favoritism.

I will only count this as a “win” if the City of Torrington changes blight policy to take into account the law and respect for due process for the owners of personal property.  I would love it if city employees were less arrogant and more reasonable when dealing with taxpayers as well.


                                                                                Kent Johnson

                                                                             




Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Evil Licensed Environmental Professionals – Against Goliath Book II

Posted on October 6, 2018 by Kent

There has never been any hazardous material contaminating anyone or anything coming from this property. This decades-long ordeal is about proving that no hazardous material can possibly contaminate anything from this property in the future.  This is about the expense and Kafkaesque bureaucracy of proving that fact.

In November of 2006 I became interested in this commercial building at 233 East Main Street, Torrington, which once was a dry cleaner.  I made an offer contingent that “property to be delivered clear and in accordance with the Connecticut Transfer Accordance Act” commonly called the Transfer Act.  I was rebuffed and instead leased the property beginning in August of 2007.

I would not buy the place for fair market value in 2007, but after owner Gene Luciano’s  death the family did not want the place. I continued to lease from the estate and purchased it the following year under the Transfer Act paying $35,000 via private funding in November of 2011.  Yeah, well, that might seem like very cheap, but you don’t know about the Transfer Act yet. Everyone who knows anything about the Transfer Act says I was foolish to buy it at any price.

The only hazardous material detected on this property was found in three out of 120 soil samples which came from 14 borings. But off the property, in 1993 water samples taken at the Wall Street gas station some 75 yards downstream (the property line is the Naugatuck River) found 27 parts per billion (ppb) of dry cleaning fluid called Perc.

This whole story is about Perc.  Tetrachloroethylene, also known as tetrachloroethene, or perchloroethylene, or PCE and many other names.  It is a chlorocarbon with the formula Cl2C=CCl2.

The Story
The owner of Luciano’s Cleaning Clinic, Eugene Luciano died in February of 2010.  Gene was a genuine hero of World War II and had the medals to prove it.  He wrote a book which he gave away to all who wanted it and signed my copy for me.  At the end of the war in Germany he and three other Americans brought in several dozen prisoners without firing a shot.  He told me they had been trying to get the guys to surrender for days and the three of them had gone out scouting behind the German position.  All of a sudden they found themselves facing the backs of about 50 guys all armed pointing the other way, at the American position.

Gene said he doesn’t know what got into him, and he doesn’t even know what the other two Americans were doing, but Gene yelled in German a phrase that meant surrender, put down your weapons, and the Germans did it.  The three of them marched the Germans to the American position.

Gene was a pip, a little guy.  He would offer to show the scars where he was shot. I introduced him to my mother, the both of them in their 80s, and he said in an opening remark “I could make love to you, you know”.  So my mother sat down with us in the kitchen that day.

He bought this location after the great Flood of 1955.  It was one of the oldest houses in Torrington and seen on the maps from the early 1800s.  Gene said it was a roadside rest stop for people traveling from Hartford to Albany, which it very well might have been according to the Torrington Historical Society.  Gene was born in the house next door, which is now a four family apartment building. Gene’s father’s house was built in 1900 or so like so many houses in Torrington.  Gene was born to a large family and did not have anything good to say about his father, who owned the house until he died.

Behind his father’s house was a garage that was lost in the flood.  Gene used to clean carpets in that garage, but after the flood he needed to find a new location for his rug cleaning so he borrowed money from his wife’s family and bought this historic landmark.  He jacked it up eight feet, added a basement, two car garage and tripled the size of the house with the dry cleaning shop add-on.  He paved nearly every square inch of the property that was not inside.  Three quarters of the property now is the old cleaners and I live in the apartment, the original 2 story house, but completely rebuilt in the early 1960s.  The original beams are visible from the basement, some of them 18 inches square and hand hewn.

Gene struggled with the Act when he wanted to sell his property. He paid HRP Associates LLC, a major player in this sad story, $20,000.  I will always remember Gene telling me about them with these words: “That’s how they fucked me, Kent”.  He said it nearly every time he spoke on the subject.  He so regretted ever letting them near his property for testing.  Gene did not realize he didn’t have any choice, of course. He saw it all as a scam, which in a way it is.

He paid HRP thinking they would prove what he knew to be true, that the property was not contaminated.  Gene would tell stories about how careful he was, how his brother who worked in cleaning at a different Torrington location had died from exposure to Perc.  Perc is what people in the industry call the dry cleaning chemical that he could always smell it on his brother.  Gene was careful not to mis-handle Perc, he said.

When he wanted to sell the property I believe Gene just felt rich.  It is a nice property in what he considered to be a prosperous area of downtown, worth a lot of money.  He certainly asked for a lot of money.  David Dean was his Real Estate Agent, and Gene told me David Dean was the one who talked him into hiring HRP and get started on the Transfer Act to sell the property.  So HRP did testing and prepared the Phase I reports required by the Transfer Act.

As you may have guessed by now HRP found some problems when they tested the property, and they could not let the property be transferred without a lot more testing, and more reports.  The recommendations from the $20,000 Phase I report of course required more testing and Gene was quoted about $130,000 with no guarantees that would take care of the problems.  No wonder he felt “fucked”.

While this was going on about 2003 Gene had another company remove the old underground oil tank so it didn’t pollute the ground in the future if it rusted out. It was common for small companies and even homes to have underground oil tanks at one time. But of course that can’t happen anymore. I once was talking to Scot of HRP and he pointed to the patch in the asphalt where the tank had been and referred to it as though he had removed the tank.  I said I had new respect for HRP since they had done so within the $20,000 Gene had paid.  Scot nodded, taking responsibility, but now, with more experience and having been through all the documents and bills, HRP had recommended the removal of the tank but Gene had paid another company to remove it.

The Background
According to our government if water testing detects an amount of Perc 25 ppb or below, that amount is not reportable.  In 1993 the gas station detected 27 ppb, a reportable level.  This was detected and reported one year after Luciano’s Cleaning Clinic had closed and sold all its equipment.  At the time that level was reportable but not considered a hazard.  There have been no detections of Perc in the vicinity before or since this one reported detection in 1993.

If Perc were detected at 2 ppb above the reportable limit today instead of 1993 it would be a hazard according to new standards of the State Department of Energy and Environmental Protection or DEEP. If it were a hazard there would have been requirements to notify people and test further and find the extent of the contamination.  But at the time the level was merely reported and registered with the government.

Twenty-seven ppb was reported 75 meters downstream from the Cleaning Clinic in 1993.  But on the property of the Clinic itself, with over $65,000 spent so far to follow DEEP directions, testing done in Phase I and Phase II for the Transfer Act from 2003 -2005 there were 120 soil samples from 14 borings, only three soil samples contained Perc. The highest sample was 122 ppb.  The other two were 40 ppb and 35 ppb.

One hundred twenty two ppb is about 12 molecules per 100 million molecules.  If there were 10 million marbles each of them one centimeter in diameter on the flat ground the marbles would cover 2.5 acres of land and one those marbles would represent Perc.  One billion square centimeters, or marbles, are about as many marbles (or square centimeters) as would fit in Hangar One, a NASA building that covers about 8 acres of land and reaches a height of 200 feet.  112 of those marbles would represent Perc.

The dosage for LSD, a very, very potent drug is generally thought to be 100 micrograms for a 220 lb (100kg) adult.    Assuming that in soil 1 ppb is 1 microgram per kilogram and in liquid 1 ppb equals 1 microgram per liter, then 112 ppb = 112 micrograms per liter.  So one would drink nearly a liter of this solution for an LSD trip.  Or in this case eat a kilogram of soil.  If we were instead to compare to the water found contaminated at the level of 27 ppb in the gas station down the road, then one would have to drink 4.5 liters to get the 100 micrograms of an LSD dosage.

Ricin is touted as one of the most toxic poisons with a lethal dosage of one milligram per kilogram. That is one one hundredth the dosage for an LSD trip.  So you would need to drink 45 liters of ricin solution for a lethal dose.

But if you don’t die both, ricin and LSD wear off.  LSD has a half-life of less than 8 hours. Eventually there will be no measurable residue in your body to prove you ever ingested these substances.

I repeat in 1993 a level of Perc two parts per billion above the reportable level was found 75 meters downstream from this location.  This is the only evidence of any hazardous material leaving this property and although it was detected it contaminated no one.  It was found a year after stopping all dry cleaning and 25 years before these words were written.  The laws and government regulations require a great deal of work and expense to prove these facts which no one doubts or disputes.

Our government environmental protection agencies regulate Perc at levels 200 times less than the most potent drugs that exist, while these quantities are buried in soil under a concrete building.  And certainly the danger of LSD or ricin in the water would be a greater danger than Perc in the soil.  Luckily I don’t have to test for LSD or ricin.

A World Health Organization survey published in 1996 reported:

 “A survey of drinking-water in the USA in 1976–77 detected tetrachloroethene [Perc] in nine of 105 samples at levels ranging from 0.2 to 3.1 [ppb] (mean 0.81 ppb). In other surveys of drinking-water supplies in the USA, it was found that 3% of all public water-supply systems that used well-water contained tetrachloroethene [Perc] at concentrations of 0.5 ppb or higher.”

In general drinking water in the US has well under 1 ppb Perc.  The EPA standard for drinking water is 5 ppb.  The WHO nor OSHA nor anyone else I could find lists standards for water, only standards for air. The Transfer Act is not interested in the amount of Perc that is in the air.

Many people believe that if a gram of something is bad then a billionth of a gram is also bad.  Often people argue that organic products are healthier because of less pesticides and other chemical residue in organics.  The produce section of your supermarket has, on a very rough average, 4 times the pesticides found in organic produce in the same supermarket. Following this logical argument, if you eat an average four organic tomatoes you are just as contaminated with pesticides as if you ate one average non-organically grown tomato. Each of us has to decide if we want to spend extra money to avoid approximately one quarter of the pesticide and chemical residues on otherwise government approved vegetables and instead buy more expensive organic vegetables.

Here we are talking about government regulations concerning a known hazardous chemical from dry cleaning.  No one reasonably believes there are harmful quantities of such chemicals here or that they can leech into our water.  But government regulations require that we prove that they aren’t and it can’t.  This chemical Perc, like pesticides and fertilizers, does not grow in the body.  If you ingest a gram of these harmful chemicals you might show reactions and need treatment, but they will leave your body.  And if you ingest a smaller quantity you might not have any symptoms, will not need treatment, and the chemical will leave your body even without you ever knowing.

The claims are that even when the amounts are small and there are no symptoms there could be damage done. Whether true or not, and all the claims about pesticides notwithstanding, the amount of chemicals we are talking about with Perc in ground water or drinking water are hundreds or even thousands of times less than the pesticide amounts in fresh produce.  And like any other substance you ingest Perc will eventually leave your body.  I am certainly not suggesting anyone taste anything harmful only pointing out that quantity makes a difference and we are not talking about sure and deadly consequences when we talk about ingesting these chemicals.

Captan is an ingredient in many pesticides that is detected in fruits and vegetables we buy at the store.  I only chose to talk about this one because it is common and often listed first due to alphabetical order.  The EPA (and curiously not the FDA) has instituted standards or a “tolerance” for public consumption of Captan and that tolerance is different for different produce.  For blue berries that tolerance is 25 ppm (parts per million are a thousand times less than ppb) while for grapes the tolerance is 50 ppm.  Of course it is extremely rare that any produce would contain that much Captan and generally the tests come up with a hundred times less than the maximum allowable.  But even at these allowable limits of 10,000 times the amount of Perc in the samples at this site, there are no expected symptoms or treatment.  If vegetables test that high don’t eat them. Report such a thing to the government and they will find out where they came from and stop any further contamination.

It is the same with Perc.  The data about harmful effects of Perc are about breathing it, and the DEEP in Connecticut doesn’t care about Perc in the air.  The dangers of Perc on the skin, we are told by OSHA, might cause a rash. But it is ridiculous to think that within a 100 yards of this location if all of the Perc molecules were gathered together in one place there would be enough there to cause such a rash.

With today’s technology we can detect parts per billion of Perc or Captan.  That is like being able to count those 112 Perc marbles in the building that is 200 feet tall and covers 8 acres.  Being able to detect the presence of Perc doesn’t mean that ingesting that amount of Perc is harmful.  Even if you could separate them from the rest of the molecules there would not be enough there to do harm.

The FDA will allow the sale of produce with higher quantities of these chemicals than the DEEP will allow us to have in the soil under the basement. We might wonder why the EPA and the DEEP are more concerned about lower quantities of chemicals in our soil than the FDA is concerned with those chemicals in food we eat.

Somewhere between one ppb and 100,000 ppm is an amount that may cause harm to humans based on experiments with lab animals.  The FDA has allowed either 50 ppm or 25 ppm for Captan on your fresh produce and the DEEP has disallowed 0.0005 ppm (5 ppb) Perc in the soil under my basement. EPA set maximum contaminant level or MCL at 5 ppb for drinking water and 25 ppb for ground water.  If a level above 5 ppb is found in drinking water it must be reported and notices given to the public.  However we can sell tomatoes with nearly a thousand times that concentration of Captan.

The Transfer Act is the law we are talking about here, not reason or logic, and the law requires one of several options be followed.  The law guarantees that Licensed Environmental Professionals certify that the property is up to DEEP standards.

According to the WHO survey “Mice treated with doses as low as 70 mg per kg (70,000 ppb) of body weight per day exhibited significantly increased liver triglyceride levels and liver-to-body-weight ratios.”

The implication is that if people are like mice and a 220 pound (100 kg) person were to regularly ingest as little as 7 grams of Perc a day it might cause significant changes in that person’s liver function that would not be good.

But as I said no one believes there are 7 grams of Perc within 100 yards of this place, or that anyone would eat that much Perc if they could.  But this is not about logic or reason; this is about laws, rules and regulations.

Phase I was completed by HRP in December of 2005 and Phase II in January of 2006.  Gene paid $20,000.

 

 

Future editing,

The Transfer Act My point is there is no 100%. It isn’t digital, yes/no, safe/unsafe. It is an analog world and just because we can measure smaller and smaller quantities doesn’t mean such small quantities are dangerous. There is a level that is and always was equivalent for ALL intents and purposes to ZERO.

 

The recommendation of HRP was this: “At a minimum, one additional monitoring well is needed  for  the  southern  portion  of  the  site  near  the  former  dry cleaning operation to provide an adequate monitoring network. Please note that this well will likely be installed in bedrock, based on the shallow refusals encountered in this area during the Phase II investigation.”

 

In August and September of 2010 (while still leasing the property, before buying it under the Transfer Act) I contracted with HRP and paid them $6300 to drill several wells to fulfill this recommendation.  They were able to drill several wells but according to their estimation the one needed could not be drilled.  Several months later they quoted me over $17,000 to drill this one well because, they stated, it had to be drilled inside the basement with little overhead clearance.

 

HRP Associates completed for me Phase III and Phase IV plus the ECAF for the Transfer Act.  There are several documents that are mostly prepared but they were unable to finish due to the fact that no work was done, but those documents may be helpful to complete the work.

 

The most important issue of inquiry is whether or not this well must be drilled at all, and if it does need to be drilled, does it need to be drilled as HRP insists, inside my basement?

 

There was also lead found in a single boring into the parking lot, nothing to do with dry cleaning.  It came from fill Gene Luciano bought from the Town of Torrington when the building was built in the 1950s.  After quotes as high as $94,000 to remediate the entire parking lot, I decided on a plan to remediate a 6 x 6 foot square where the sample had been found.  I would provide the labor and HRP Associates would send someone to oversee the work and for this I gave them an $8,000 retainer toward an estimated $12,000 bill.

 

While preparing to remediate the lead with men and shovels under my employ, HRP provided to me a form letter to send to all adjacent property owners to notify them of the remediation work and ask them if they had well water on their property.  There is a water well about 250 meters uphill from this property and therefore all work had to stop and I was required by law (according to HRP) to notify the DEEP that I am a “Significant Environmental Hazard”.  The DEEP says I may now be required to do more or different work.  As the owner of the well is a friend of mine he shared the information that nothing was found in the well after testing by the DEEP last year.

 

This seems Kafkaesque. 2005 levels of a chemical found in the soil under the basement of the building, a chemical that hasn’t been on this property in over 20 years makes this property a hazard today to a fresh water well uphill when water samples downstream tested clean even 20 years ago (2 ppb above reportable levels).

 

HRP also insisted that I pay $6,500 for them to “identify all properties within 500 feet of … property boundary 2) search well drilling records at the health department, CT DEEP, and Dept. of Consumer Protection to identify wells, 3) contact the water company to see which properties they serve, and 4) a drive-by survey.”  I am not able to do such work myself since I am not licensed, and I did not hire another licensed person to do the work since the companies I contacted insisted they would need to re-perform all the background work and not rely on the work of another Licensed Environmental Professional, HRP Associates.  These companies warned that they may find some new problem they would have to address once they began work.

 

No work was performed and in March of 2015 HRP Associates terminated services with me, sending me fraudulent invoices for services not rendered.  I sued for the return of my $8,000 retainer in Superior Court, which forced me into Arbitration and most of my money was returned to me in November of 2016.

 

So I am in need of help to fulfill the requirements of the Transfer Act.  The information below may be helpful in deciding how to proceed to terminate my responsibilities and finish the work that needs to be done.

 

EXCERPTS [direct quotes from the Reports except brackets mine]:

 

From December 9, 2005 Phase I Report (62 Pages).

——————————–

Conclusions: The DEP indicated in the memo that the identified chlorinated VOC [volatile organic compounds] groundwater contamination is presumably from Luciano’s Cleaners, the subject site. PCE levels up to 27 parts per billion (ppb) [25 ppb is the “reporting Level, anything below that level need not be reported] and TCE levels up to 6.5 ppb were detected on the East Wall Gulf Station property. A DEP Memo dated January 10, 1994 suggests that chlorinated VOC contamination detected on this property is presumably from Luciano’s Cleaners, the subject site.

 

Water samples taken by Harwinton Drilling on 1/29/93 only showed very levels of hydrocarbons in monitoring well#1 (See attachment #12}. The DEP’s LUST Section surveyed and sampled these wells on 10/25/93. Groundwater flow was determined to be basically parallel to the Branch River. The upgradient well (#1696} showed low levels of PCE, TCE (presumably Luciano’s Cleaners} and MTBE…

 

Recommendations:

  1. Prior to any future transfer of the property, HRP would recommend review of the “Transfer Act” by appropriate environmental legal counsel as it applies to the subject site, to determine the necessary filings pursuant to the Connecticut Transfer Act.

 

Given the recognized environmental conditions identified for the site (Conclusion #6), HRP recommends that a subsurface investigation be completed at the subject property.  Such an investigation should include the installation of test borings and groundwater monitoring wells in the areas of concern, with follow-up analysis of selected soil and groundwater samples from these areas.  The purpose of the proposed investigations is to determine whether or not a petroleum or chemical release has occurred at the site due to historical activities and operations.

 

Pending the results of these investigations, if evidence of contamination is identified in the subsurface, then HRP would make recommendations for additional site characterization and/or remediation, as necessary.

 

 

[From January 24, 2006 Phase II Report (75 pages)]

 

Conclusions: Five sub-slab borings and nine exterior test borings were installed on­ site to investigate the potential release areas. A total of sixty-three (63) soil samples were collected and field screened. As a result of this evaluation, thirteen (13) soil samples were selected for laboratory submission for analysis of selected parameters.

 

A mass lead concentration exceeding the residential direct exposure criteria was detected in one shallow soil sample collected from test boring TB-7 at a depth of 0.2′-2′ below grade. The elevated lead in this sample is interpreted to be related to the urban fill soils containing a trace of coal/ash that were encountered in this boring from below the asphalt to a total depth of 3 feet below grade. No other CT RSR exceedances were exceeded in any of the analyzed soil samples.

 

Low levels of CT ETPH and PAHs were detected in selected soil samples, well below CT RSR criteria. Low levels of tetrachloroethylene (a.k.a., “perc”), were detected in shallow soil samples collected from borings HS-01, HS-05, and TB-2.

 

Three (3) ground water monitoring wells were installed in the overburden aquifer on the subject site. Ground water samples were collected from the three wells and were analyzed for volatile organic compounds.

 

Low levels of various chlorinated volatile organic compounds were detected in these ground water samples. These compounds included tetrachloroethylene (a.k.a., “perc”), cis- 1,2- dichloroethylene, and trichloroethylene. All VOC levels are below applicable CT RSR criteria. [This passage is misleading since only tetrachloroethylene was detected at reportable levels].

 

Based on January 11, 2006 survey event and regional topography, ground water in the shallow overburden aquifer beneath the site is interpreted to flow generally to the northwest and west toward the East Branch of the Naugatuck River.

 

Recommendations: Based upon the results of the subsurface investigations as described in this report, HRP has the following recommendations for additional investigations at the subject site:

 

Given that the complete vertical and horizontal distribution of site soils with mass lead contamination exceeding applicable CT RSR criteria has not been fully delineated, HRP recommends additional subsurface investigations at the site. The soil investigations would mainly focus on evaluating the degree and extent of contaminated soil in the area of test boring TB-7. At the conclusion of the degree and extent investigations, HRP will make recommendations for appropriately addressing/handling the contaminated soil. Such recommendations would take into account the proposed future use of the site and the various means of compliance outlined in the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations, as possible.

 

One possible remediation scenario would be the excavation and appropriate off-site disposal at an approved facility of shallow contaminated soils exceeding applicable CT RSR direct exposure criteria (DEC) standards. Following site remediation, at least two years of post-remediation monitoring would also be required to achieve compliance. Note that other remediation alternatives may exist for the site, the feasibility of which would be examined at the conclusion of the recommended degree and extent investigations.

 

Additional ground water monitoring should be completed at the site to confirm the results of the initial event. Also, further evaluation of site ground water needs to be completed based on the detection of tetrachloroethylene and other chlorinated VOCs [what other VOCs?] in the three site monitoring wells. At a minimum, one additional monitoring well is needed  for  the  southern  portion  of  the  site  near  the  former  dry cleaning operation to provide an adequate monitoring network. Please note that this well will likely be installed in ·bedrock, based on the shallow refusals encountered in this area during the Phase II investigation. The recommended ground water monitoring should include collection of ground water samples from the three existing site wells and at least one additional well, and laboratory analyses of volatile organic compounds and lead.

 

Here end the excerpts.

 

 

The owner, Eugene Luciano died in February of 2010.  Gene was a genuine hero of World War II and had the medals to prove it.  He wrote a book which he gave away to all who wanted it and signed my copy for me.  At the end of the war in Germany he and three other Americans brought in several dozen prisoners without firing a shot.  He told me they had been trying to get the guys to surrender for days and the three of them had gone out scouting behind the German position.  All of a sudden they found themselves facing the backs of about 50 guys all armed pointing the other way, at the American position.

 

Gene said he doesn’t know what got into him, and he doesn’t even know what the other two Americans were doing, but Gene yelled in German a phrase that meant surrender, put down your weapons, and the Germans did it.  The three of them marched the Germans to the American position.

 

Gene was a pip, a little guy.  He bought this location after the great Flood of 1955.  It was one of the oldest houses in Torrington, on the maps from the early 1800s.  Gene said it was a roadside rest stop for people traveling from Hartford to Albany, which it very well might have been according to the Torrington Historical Society.  Gene was born in the house next door, which is now a four family apartment building, built in 1900 or so like so many houses in Torrington.  Gene was born to a large family and did not have anything good to say about his father, who owned the house until he died.

 

Behind his father’s house was a garage that was lost in the flood.  Gene used to clean carpets in that garage, but after the flood he needed to find a new location for his rug cleaning so he borrowed money from his wife’s family and bought this historic landmark.  He jacked it up eight feet, added a basement, two car garage and tripled the size of the house with the dry cleaning shop add-on.  He paved nearly every square inch of the property that was not inside.  Three quarters of the property now is the old cleaners and I live in the apartment, the original 2 story house.  The original beams are visible from the basement, some of them 18 inches square and hand hewn.

Gene struggled with the Act when he wanted to sell his property. He paid HRP Associates LLC, a major player in this sad story, $20,000.  I will always remember Gene telling me about them with these words: “That’s how they fucked me, Kent”.  He said it nearly every time he spoke on the subject.  He so regretted ever letting them near his property for testing.  Gene did not realize he didn’t have any choice, of course. He saw it all as a scam, which in a way it is.

 

He paid HRP thinking they would prove what he knew to be true, that the property was not contaminated.  Gene would tell stories about how careful he was, how his brother who worked in cleaning at a different Torrington location had died from exposure to Perc.  Perc is what people in the industry call the dry cleaning chemical that he could always smell it on his brother.  Gene was careful not to mis-handle Perc, he said.

 

When he wanted to sell the property I believe Gene just felt rich.  It is a nice property in what he considered to be a prosperous area of downtown, worth a lot of money.  He certainly asked for a lot of money.  David Dean was his Real Estate Agent, and Gene told me David Dean was the one who talked him into hiring HRP and get started on the Transfer Act to sell the property.  So HRP did testing and prepared the Phase I reports required by the Transfer Act.

 

As you may have guessed by now HRP found some problems when they tested the property, and they could not let the property be transferred without a lot more testing, and more reports.  The recommendations from the $20,000 Phase I report of course required more testing and Gene was quoted about $130,000 with no guarantees that would take care of the problems.  No wonder he felt “fucked”.

 

While this was going on about 2003 Gene had another company remove the old underground oil tank so it didn’t pollute the ground in the future if it rusted out.  I once was talking to Scot of HRP and he pointed to the patch in the asphalt where the tank had been and referred to it as though he had removed the tank.  I said I had new respect for HRP since they had done so within the $20,000 Gene had paid.  Scot nodded, taking responsibility, but now, with more experience and having been through all the documents and bills, HRP had recommended the removal of the tank but Gene had paid another company to remove it.

 

Posted in Book | Leave a comment

Science and Skepticism: The New Compromise

Posted on August 29, 2017 by Kent

Historically those who question and check facts and figures have been called skeptics, but not any more.  These days people who think they are on the side of “science” (which has no side) call themselves skeptics.  The only checking is that of official blogs of known and trusted sources and the belief that if science says so it is true.

There are checks and balances, these new skeptics argue, that science is “peer reviewed” and that there are all kinds of bad sources that should not be considered.  So if a source is good then the science is good then you can believe what is said by that source and call yourself a skeptic.

At this point it becomes difficult to track the various reasoning paths since some of the new skeptics are capable of individual critical thinking and will deny they follow the source and not the idea.  Anyone who examines this dynamic sees the error  but the dynamic is so entrenched at this point it becomes difficult for those who recognize critical thinking to separate themselves from the herd.  Reactions to facing this error in ones own thinking are always some form of denial, but rarely a grudging acceptance to look at re-examine the issue just this once.

Perhaps there is also some fear that if these new skeptics actually try to follow a complicated argument they will be fooled and confounded and ridiculed for their error.

This dynamic is most visible with hot-button items like Climate Change or Vaccines or Chemtrails.  Skeptics are emotionally involved in those matters and have made their decisions and will not consider any point of view that might challenge what they believe to be true, from whatever source.

When the self identified new skeptic hears allusions to something for which they have made an emotional attachment, like climate, vaccines or chemtrails, they shut down and will use all manner of insult and scorn to stop any consideration of the subject.  This is why we see a sharp dichotomy between Deniers and Alarmists or the Antivaxers and Provaxers and those who investigate Chemtrails and the rest of the world.  It is a politically partisan divide which a traditional skeptic would be able to maneuver.

But the new skeptic becomes partisan for one or more of the various reasons stated above and chant “scientific consensus” and “vaccines save lives” and chemtrails have been debunked.   There is nothing to consider, the decisions have been made, the issues are solved there is no one to turn to if you have a question or wish a fair examination of some part of the issue.  Try the courts.

Posted in Economics, News, Stupid Laws | Leave a comment

The Book Is Available

Posted on February 22, 2017 by Kent

The book is done.  I bought a limited run looking for constructive and heartless criticism before the second printing, which will include an index and several improvements.

A personally signed first edition available today.

[wpecpp name=”Signed Book” price=”25.00″ align=”center”]

The $25 cover price will buy you a signed copy of the paperback with free shipping to the US address of your choice.

You can buy the PDF version of the book here for $5

[wpecpp name=”Buy The PDF” price=”5.00″ align=”center”]

Amazon and other sites will have it for differing prices so you can shop around. Things are developing.  The first edition is a limited run and I ask for heartless literary criticism, especially typos and such.

I am putting all the original documents in Archive boxes, saving digital copies in backups.  There will be many updates to this site as things progress.

Happy reading!  — Kent

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Evil Licensed Environmental Professionals

Posted on August 21, 2016 by Kent

 

Compatible Computers

Claimant   &

HRP Associates, Inc.

Respondent

 )

)

)

)

 American Arbitration Association
Case No. 01-16-0001-1885
August 29, 2016

An Edit of the Arbitration Case filed 8/29/2016  

The Respondent HRP Associates Inc. Regional Manager Scot Kuhn misremembered the retainer amount when he wrote the termination of services letter with final invoice on March 6, 2015 Claimant – 1.  He remembered $3,000 and not $8,000.  Between 2010 and 2012 Compatible Computers had three times deposited $3,000 payments to HRP for earlier work completed.  So The Respondent Regional Manager Scot Kuhn wrote an invoice for $3,445.35 saying “While the costs … have exceeded the retainer amount you provided on December 9, 2013, you owe nothing further at this time” (C-1, P-2 ¶3).

Six months later and 21 months after any work was done, Kuhn had been reminded the retainer was $8,000 and not $3,000 and then wrote and presented a fraudulent $8,325.90 invoice (C-2) for the same services but billing $5,000 more.  The September fraud states “The total cost to date … was $8,325.90.  The balance of $325.90 will not be invoiced to you.” (C-2 P-2 ¶2)

This clear fraud is clearly business as usual as well as a clear violation of CGS Sec. 53a-290 C-3.  Investigations by the State’s Attorney may find more criminal conduct. This Arbitration is for breach of contract but it contains criminal fraud as well as the negligent and unilateral termination breaches.

HRP’s lawyer Mary Bartholic of Cohn Birnbaum & Shea PC is not paying attention, forgetting appointments and showing up to court without reading briefs. There has been no offer of settlement or specific acknowledgement of the claims of fraud.  Perhaps she won’t respond to this claim. Perhaps the negligence is calculated, that if she appears not to be following she can appear ethical.  Perhaps the amount of money involved is considered spent on a legal retainer and HRP tells her to postpone returning the retainer as long as possible.  Clearly HRP will not take action against their employees’ malfeasance without a clear opinion from this arbitration and/or a future criminal or civil fraud case.

Whatever the reason the Respondent is using HRP resources to defend a fraud, and fraud is the precipitating factor leading to this legal action and this arbitration and the costs of this action so far are $1,635.30, plus interest on $8,000 for nearly three years C-3.  Note the Respondent forced this arbitration with a Motion in Superior Court C-4 and a motion from the Claimant for inexpensive Summary Judgment is still pending C-5.

There is nothing in which explicitly calls for the forfeit or the return of a retainer or for sharing costs of any necessary legal action. In legal cases ethics and fairness are secondary to a large body of law against such brazen avarice because in court (or arbitration) the reprehensible can be considered in a civilized manner. Such fraud cases do not so much seek justice but rather fines of up to $10,000 and imprisonment of 1 to 10 years, widely considered a deterrent to such fraud.

If I decide not to deliver a service or a product I certainly and automatically return any monies paid.  As well as moral and legal considerations I would not be long in business if I did not see the evident justice of such a simple principle.  A professional arbitrator might frequently encounter cases seeking the return of unearned monies and see an area of dispute about facts and seek to help justice be served even if a reputation for justice is won which will lose such an Arbitrator future income from powerful clients. Here we clearly see criminal intent by re-writing a $3,000 invoice for $8,325.90 which alone is a Class C Felony. If the Respondent had not brazenly re-written the invoice for nearly triple the worth with no additional documentation, 18 months after all work ceased, for greed alone, we would not be here.  People in positions of unwarranted power caught in brazen avarice should face their actions even if they are cleaning the world of contaminants.

On December 2, 2015, the Respondent filed in Superior Court the Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration and attached Exhibit 1 (C-4 pages 10-20) which the Respondent called “The Agreement” in Superior Court documents.  This agreement was signed December 3, 2013, along with the retainer check of $8,000. The Respondent received the retainer on December 9 (C- 1 end of first paragraph).

Exhibit 1 is attached to the Agreement (C-4 pages 10-20) part of which outlines the Respondent’s proposals or “Scope of Services” (C-4 pages 10-14). The Agreement also includes some of the email communication and negotiations that brought us to the $8,000 retainer (Pages 18-20 of C-4, NB page 18 portion underlined by the Respondent).

By the time Task 1, the Remedial Action Plan or RAP (C-6) was prepared (February 2014) the Claimant and Respondents knew it would not be filed with the Connecticut DEEP and all plans for work had ceased. The March 6, 2015 invoice (over a year after all work was stopped) charges $463.50 for the RAP, Task 1 on page 3 of C- 2.  Agreement C-4 page 14 states “Task 5: Reporting and Project Management Upon completion of Task 2 (emphasis mine) HRP will prepare a Remedial Action Report…”  Task 2 is Remediation Oversight and there was no remediation hence no oversight. So charges for Task 2 and Task 5 are suspicious.

The bulk of the March 2015 invoice, $3,267 of the $3,445.84, minus an unexplained “Professional Courtesy Discount”, is charged to “Task 05 Reporting,Product Managemnt & SEH Filing” C- 2 top of page 4.  Claimant – 1 September 5, 2015, invoice charges $3,387.55 for “Additional Approved tasks” which might be considered a similar figure if not for the unexplained discount and three bullet items that appear nowhere else.

First of the bullets is the “SEH Reporting Requirement” without explaining the charges. Secondly is “Tailoring public notice letter with well questionnaire and review of responses”.  If that means emailing me the language of the letters I sent, and then receiving the responses when I mailed them back to the Respondent then yes, they did that in December of 2013, 21 months earlier.  Details of my work are registered in C-7 Edited Emails and copies of the mail receipts are in C-6 pages 12-26.  I did the work and was charged by the Respondent $1,269.05 for “tailoring” and “review of” my work.  The final item, “review of your correspondence with the CT DEEP” was $830.  I emailed the Respondent a copy of a two page letter I sent the DEEP and apparently the Respondent read it.

Suspiciously the bulk of the charges in the September fraudulent invoice are Tasks 1 & 2 ($4,938.35) but in the March invoice nearly the entire invoice, $3,267.00 minus a mysterious discount, is “Task 05” (C- 2 the very first line of the last page). Compare $463.50 the RAP charge in March with $2,376.16 for the RAP in September “and review of Completion Investigation Form status”.  If $463.50 is the charge for the RAP it sounds like I am being charged the difference between those two figures or $1,912.66 for “review of Completion Investigation Form status” or looking at the returned questionnaires.

A detailed comparison of both invoices shows a myriad inconsistency worth ridicule but not serious consideration.  The Respondent is not engaged, out to lunch, on autopilot, lazy but greedy.  Neither invoice is intended to be examined. Rather they were written for any amount higher than the retainer, a slammed door, believing everything will be soon forgotten and there is no penalty for fraud in their company.

Beyond the fraud and the negligence, there were problems with the work that was contracted.  The February 2014 26 page and unusable RAP (C-6) contains serious errors. For several years and through countless proposals and estimates, with a two year deadline approaching, I believed that I could complete one of the two HRP required projects.  In 2002 an amount of lead EPA guidelines classify as “reportable” was detected in a soil sample.  I convinced HRP that I could use my own workers to “remediate” the “contaminate” and put it in a covered barrel while HRP sent samples to a lab. This would save me some $40,000 from previous HRP project estimates. On December 3, 2013 the main issue was that the Respondent supervise my workers who were not trained in handling lead. See C-7 the part about what Scot and I “envisioned” at the end of page 3 onto page 4.

The area to be remediated in the “final” RAP C-6 page 11 (in pink) if drawn to scale is, as email confirms, 10 x 10 feet but there is an area marked out by the HRP Geologist Mark Gaugan in a five minute visit as approximately 5 feet square

Most definitely NOT 10 ft x 10 ft.

Most definitely NOT 10 ft x 10 ft.

 photo. In the March 2015 invoice I was charged $444.16 presumably for the hour round trip it took the geologist to mark out the area, including $14.11 travel expenses and some suspicious word processing charges.

Claimant 7 Edited Email page 3 we have a detailed explanation of the estimated charges from Scot Kuhn: “Our revised  Task 3 cost to prepare the required notice, coordinate and work with your contractor, supervise the excavation, collect confirmation and waste characterization samples, and provide you and your contractor with the results would be reduced to about $8,500.  You (or your contractor) will be responsible for the site structures, utility markout, excavation, backfill, pavement restoration, transportation & disposal of soils.”   Absolutely none of what is listed above was begun much less completed except the notices, which I did.  When I signed the Agreement C-4 page 17 I hand wrote “as explained in email”.  The above passage was the explanation I had in mind.

The email the Respondent included as the Agreement, C-4, bottom of page 18, covers the day the agreement is reached, and as such shows I am immediately “disappointed” that work will be postponed for reasons previously undisclosed despite years of planning.

HRP has been involved with this property since contacted by Eugene Luciano in 2002.  Mr. Luciano has since deceased, but he told me he spent $20,000 with them.  They prepared Phase I and Phase II reports for Gene and I had previously contracted with HRP for the final Phase III, for which they were paid. The disputed $8000 retainer was paid toward finishing work recommended in Phase II and Phase III which I expected to begin work immediately.  Not coincidentally in August of 2010 I paid $3,000, the following month $3,300, and in February of 2012, $3,100.  The $3,000 figure stuck with Scot Kuhn when he was writing my invoice in March, 2015.

I assume the Project Manager’s .75 hours for this work is carefully documented but 2 hours of word processing is suspicious.  The Markout was time charged to the Geologist, presumably the five minute visit in December 2013, and represents 1 hour at $140 and the only on-site visit and so word processing has no explanation. The fraudulent September 15, 2015 invoice charges $814.11 for “Site Markout” with no mention of word processing.

Claimant 7 email shows that I prepared and mailed certified letters and public notices.  The final page of the C- 2 March invoice charges me a total of $1.55 for postage and reproduction but the Respondent claims more than 7 hours of word processing.  C-6 the 26 page RAP’s final 14 pages contains copies of some of the documents I prepared and sent. If the Respondent acknowledges the existence of the March 2015 invoice at all certainly the Respondent will then explain over 7 hours of word processing charges when they produced a single 26 page document that has only three pages of word processing, C-5 pages 5-7. The rest is copy and paste of previously prepared and already paid-for documents on file with the Respondent.  The September 2015 invoice purports to detail what was done on its final page “Tailoring public notice letter with the well questionnaire and review of responses” for which I was charged $1,269.05. There is no specific claim of word processing in the September fraud.

Through the Freedom of Information Act I received invoices from my Torrington Mayor’s office about a news item in 2014.  Our town hired HRP to “clean up” an area to be used as a 41 space parking lot which the town bought for the amount of one dollar.  After spending $787,347.64 with HRP it became apparent that the town needed an additional one million dollars, or more, for HRP to finish.  Attached is a copy of some of the accounting which shows Management logging 50 hours, geologists over 200 hours and word processing hardly 5 hours.

Regardless how the Respondent counts the charges against the $8000 retainer there is significant fraud evident in the invoices presented.

No information to which the Claimant is party in this arbitration is confidential or privileged.

I request from Arbitration a specific comparison and a characterization of the two fraudulent invoices Claimant 1 compared with pages 3 and 4 of Claimant 2.

Posted in Book, Case Related, News, Stupid Laws | Leave a comment

God Willing We Will Move On

Posted on July 26, 2016 by Kent

It is as though classes of people, a majority of all people of every class, care more about truthiness than truth, about disparaging others than facts, about their superstitions and other irrational beliefs than justice and equity, and about finding simple but unworkable solutions in the interest of feeling better. Partisanship and irrational religious faith seem to teach people that the truth is black/white, hot/cold, yes/no when the truth is infinite. The portraits and characterizations of people in Hillbilly Elegy and other social generalizations seem to overlook the fact that anyone can see past how they feel about a person or situation and instead examine them or that situation more deeply. God willing the people of earth will start to move in that direction one day.

Posted in News, Stupid Laws | Leave a comment

Gun Control… Yeah … Right

Posted on June 13, 2016 by Kent

If making guns illegal will stop gun violence they should make drugs illegal too.

If we did not have the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms there is very little doubt no one would have guns.  Sokay, tho, the citizens of many countries have no guns.  I am not arguing we are better off or worse off because we have guns.  I can get a permit, go to the range or out in the country, and shoot a gun.  In other countries the citizens cannot.  I am freer, in this way, than the citizens of other countries.

Because I have a constitutional right to bear arms which means I can have a gun in my home and that does not break any laws.  Whether or not that gun is registered, stolen, dangerous, whatever, all of that is immaterial.  I have the right as a citizen of the USA.

If I use the gun, however, then all kinds of laws might be broken.  If I remove the gun from my property I might break even more laws.  A gun permit allows me to have a gun that is not on my own property without breaking a law.  The reason for the permit, as is the reason for every license or permit, is to be sure I can safely use the firearm and the government can get money to administer and register and keep some kind of control over my transportation of my firearm.

In order to buy a firearm there are several laws in place to regulate that.  We have already established that I cannot transport a firearm without a license.  And obviously it is illegal to buy an unregistered firearm, like from a guy on the street.  So with very, very few exceptions the only place I can buy a firearm is from a licensed firearm dealer.  That’s okay, there are lots of them.  These dealers are licensed which means they too need to be safe and follow lots of rules, and pay money to the government oversee their compliance.

So if I want to buy a firearm I can because I am an American citizen.  However there are laws.  No one can sell me that firearm unless they are a registered dealer (with very, very few exceptions).  If a dealer sells me an arm that dealer is required to do a background check on me.  If I have a permit then I have had a background check.  If I do not have a permit then the dealer will not allow me to remove the firearm from his premises.

So if I wanted a gun in my home I could buy a registered gun from a gun dealer (having passed a background check which can take several days) and have someone with a license transport it legally to my house.

 

Posted in Incompetence, News, Stupid Laws | Leave a comment

The Discussion We NEED is not on Facebook

Posted on May 22, 2016 by Kent

Everyone says we should be civil, until someone says there is lack of scientific support for, well, you name the environmental or political cause…. the economics of welfare or health care, human caused weather, the abridging of rights and freedoms by laws, government flunkies, and power hungry case workers…

Well made civil argument is what we need. Name a cause and listen to BOTH sides to find out, for example, there are no illegal immigrants, 5 European and 8 Latin American countries and legalized ALL drugs, concrete in cities causes more warming than CO2, organic foods, drilling, lead in water, fracking, coal, ethanol, pesticide pollution, Monsanto, Environmental Professionals, polar bear populations, clean sewers…

All sides are simplifying all arguments. No one can listen to an argument without taking a side and we need to listen to the arguments. Vote for Hillary.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Jesse and Sarah McIntyre: Embrace Yourselves.

Posted on March 14, 2016 by Kent

Jesse and Sarah McIntyre  found all kinds of very old information about me and post it in the Comments section of the Hartford Courant. jessensarah

Strange to see stuff like that. In the dozens of Small Claims cases I have filed in 20 years of business I have lost two, and more than ten years ago, and they found them and posted details. Also, in 1999 I had trouble with the IRS and this guy posted details, all of this without dates.

I found information about them as well.  But I am not like them, don’t want to post anything I don’t know personally.  I do know from personal experience these people are jerks, and that Jesse is fat.  Well, I am going by his picture.

I post this as an informational incentive to everyone to remember what you do and embrace it.  When you are sued, or when you sue someone, the details are dull, but the name of the suit and who won, well, that is memorable.  I was charged with crimes, name in the papers, all of which I won in court.  I am suing HRP Associates LLP right now.

I am not a lawyer, and I might not win, but that just means bigots like the McIntyres who are writing in support of Donald Trump in the comments section of the Courant can throw unrelated details of my life in front of those who are reading.

Which is my point about Donald Trump.  Critical thinking doesn’t mean anything to his supporters like the McIntyres, Ad Hominem arguments, impeach the source, if he said the sky is blue that means it is green.  If Donald will pay for their legal defense they can kill someone.  It is just a strange world we live in where people report the facts but not the character, impeach the source but not consider the argument.

We can all be right or wrong, but we all need to embrace ourselves.  I am who I am, and I consider the argument, not the person making them.  In this case the argument is the people making them, and these McIntyres have proven themselves bigots and sleeze buckets.  I will only post from my personal experience of them here.  But others can find out more about them just as they found out about me.

Here is what they said about me: “Oh boy, Kent has been a busy guy. Sooooo Kent, like many of you socialist minded idiots, you don’t always show your full hand. You shoot your mouths off with some sort of self righteous opinion and become intolerant of those with differing opinions.
So here’s the deal ladies and gentlemen, Kent thinks Bernie’s idea of taxing people at 90% is a great idea. So it’s kind of ironic that he would support that idea but not pay his own taxes.
Tell us about the 13 IRS liens you have against your property. Geez, one of those liens is for $21k. I guess paying taxes is a good idea as long as it isn’t you. Hypocrite much Kent? Cute.
Also, tell us about the lawsuits that Bazzano and Beyer filed against you and won. Guess you don’t like paying back your friends, when they loan you money, either.
Yeah, you’re a stand up guy. Freaking winner right there.”

I am done.  Up to the McIntyres now.

 

Posted in Book, Incompetence, News, Stupid Laws | Tagged | Leave a comment